Articles Posted in Auction-Rate Securities

2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of $18.5M Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Merrill Lynch Filed by Anschutz Corp.

Published on: August 23, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a lower court’s ruling to dismiss the ARS lawsuit filed against Merrill Lynch (MER), Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner, and Smith Inc. ( MLPF&S), Moody’s Investor Services (MCO), and the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. (MHP). Pursuant to state and federal law, plaintiff Anschutz Corp., which was left with $18.95 million of illiquid auction-rate securities when the market failed, had brought claims alleging market manipulation, negligent misrepresentation, and control person liability. The case is Anschutz Corp. v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc.

According to the court, Merrill Lynch underwrote a number of the Anchorage Finance ARS and Dutch Harbor ARS offerings in which Anschutz Corp. invested. To keep auction failures from happening, Merrill was also involved as a seller and buyer in the ARS auctions and had its own account. Placing these support bids in both ARS auctions allowed Merrill to make sure that they would clear regardless of the orders placed by others. The financial firm is said to have been aware that the ARS demand was not enough to “feed the auctions” unless it too made bids and that its clients did not know of the full extent of these practices.

Per its securities complaint, Anschutz contends that the description of Merrill’s ARS practices, which were published on the financial firm’s website beginning in 2006, were misleading, untrue, and “inadequate.” The plaintiff accused the credit rating agency defendants of giving the ARS offerings ratings that also were misleading and false and should have been lowered (at the latest) in early 2007 when Merrill knew or should have known that the ratings they did receive were unwarranted.

UBS, Citigroup FINRA Arbitration with Nonprofit Over ARS Cannot Be Halted, Said District Court

Published on: August 6, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia said that Citigroup (C) and UBS (UBS)cannot preliminarily enjoin Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration over an auction-rate securities offering that did not succeed. The case is UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Carilion Clinic. Carilion is a nonprofit health care and the two financial services firms had provided it with services, including underwriting, for an issuance of auction rate securities that ended up failing.

Per Judge John Gibney, Jr., in 2005, the nonprofit had looked to Citigroup and UBS for help in raising raise $308.465 million to renovate and grow its medical facilities. The two financial firms allegedly recommended that Carilion issue $72.24 million of bonds as variable demand rate obligations. The nonprofit then issued the rest of the funds—$234 million—as ARS, which are at the center of the case.

After the ARS market failed in 2008, the interest rates on Carillion’s ARS went up, forcing the nonprofit to refinance its debt so it wouldn’t have to contend with even higher rates. The auctions then started failing.

Carilion contends that it didn’t know that UBS and Citigroup had been helping to hold up the ARS market prior to its collapse (which they then stopped doing) and said it wouldn’t have issued the securities if they had known that this was the case. The nonprofit filed FINRA arbitration proceedings against the two financial firms and said it could submit the dispute as a “customer” of both even though arbitration isn’t a provision of their written agreements.

Citigroup and UBS sought to bar the arbitration with their motion for a preliminary injunction. The district court, however, rejected their contention that the nonprofit is not a customer of theirs (if this had been determined to be true, then Carilion would not be able to arbitrate against them in front of FINRA). It said that the nonprofit was a “customer,” to both UBS and Citigroup, seeing as both firms provided it with numerous financial services and were paid accordingly.

The court also turned down the financial firms’ argument that Carilion had waived its right to arbitration when it consented to a mandatory forum selection clause that requires for disputes to go through the litigation in front of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. It pointed out that the “forum selection clause” could only be found in the agreements with one of the parties and that language used, as it relates to arbitration, is ambiguous and would not be interpreted as a waiver of Carillion’s arbitration rights.

Carilion can therefore go ahead and have FINRA preside over its arbitration dispute.

UBS Financial Services Inc. v. Carilion Clinic, Reuters, July 30, 2012

More Blog Posts:
Texas Securities Fraud: BNY Mellon Capital Markets LLC Settles Allegations of Rigged Bond Bidding for $1.3M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 24, 2012

Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 20, 2012

The 11th Circuit Revives SEC Fraud Lawsuit Against Morgan Keegan Over Auction-Rate Securities, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, May 8, 2012

The 11th Circuit Revives SEC Fraud Lawsuit Against Morgan Keegan Over Auction-Rate Securities

Published on: May 8, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has revived the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s fraud lawsuit against Morgan Keegan & Co. accusing the financial firm of allegedly misleading investors about auction-rate securities. The federal appeals court said that a district judge was in error when he found that alleged misrepresentations made by the financial firm’s brokers were immaterial. The case will now go back to district court. Morgan Keegan is a Raymond James Financial Inc. (RJF) unit.

The SEC had sued Morgan Keegan in 2009. In its complaint, the Commission accused the financial firm of leaving investors with $2.2M of illiquid ARS. The agency said that Morgan Keegan failed to tell clients about the risks involved and that it instead promoted the securities as having “zero risk” or being “fully liquid” or “just like a money market.” The SEC demanded that Morgan Keegan buy back the debt sold to these clients.

In 2011, U.S. District Judge William Duffey ruled on the securities fraud lawsuit and found that Morgan Keegan did adequately disclose the risks involved. He said that even if some brokers did make misrepresentations, the SEC had failed to present any evidence demonstrating that the financial firm had put into place a policy encouraging its brokers-dealers to mislead investors about ARS liquidity. Duffey pointed to Morgan Keegan’s Web site, which disclosed the ARS risks. He said this demonstrated that there was no institutional intent to fool investors. He also noted that a “failure to predict the market” did not constitute securities fraud and that the Commission would need to show examples of alleged broker misconduct before Morgan Keegan could be held liable.

Texas Securities Fraud: BNY Mellon Capital Markets LLC Settles Allegations of Rigged Bond Bidding for $1.3M

Published on: January 24, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

BNY Mellon Capital Markets LLC has agreed to pay the states of Texas, Florida, and New York $1.3M to settle allegations that it was involved in a bond bidding scam to reduce Citizens Property Insurance Corp. of Florida’s borrowing expenses. The Texas portion of the securities fraud settlement is $500,000, which will go toward its general revenue fund.

Per the Texas Securities Commissioner’s Consent Order, which it submitted last month, Mellon Financial Markets is accused of helping Citizens manipulate its ARS interest rate. Reducing these rates allowed Citizens to save money while costing investors that held the ARS when they ended up making $6.7M less in interest.

The Consent Order comes from a separate probe that the Texas State Securities Board had been involved in. The board found out that Citizens had sought the assistance of MFM in both the bidding on its own auctions and the concealment of this activity.

Per the Order, although an MFM broker reported the trading situation to a supervisor, the latter did not bring it to the financial firm’s compliance department or talk about it with legal counsel. As ARS interest rates went up, MFM placed bids for the debt at interest rates that were lower than going rates for similar ARS issues. The Order accuses MFM traders of understanding the consequences that would result from the way they were bidding.

Even after the ARS market failed in 2008, MFM traders continued to choose lower rates for Citizens until BNY’s compliance and legal departments stepped in to halt the process. The Texas State Securities Board determined that BNY Mellon Capital Markets’ actions involved “inequitable practices” related to securities sales. It also said that the financial firm violated regulations by not setting up, maintaining, and enforcing supervisory procedures that were reasonably designed.

Auction-Rate Securities
ARS are long-term debt issues with interest rates that are reset at auctions, which usually occur at set interval periods. The yield is a result of bidding that takes place at the auction, where investors are given an opportunity to get their funds without waiting for the debt to reach maturity. The ARS market let Citizen and other entities obtain long-term financing at interest rates that are usually connected with shorter-term investments.

Unfortunately, when the ARS market failed, investors found out that their money had become illiquid and inaccessible despite claims by financial firms that auction rate securities were safe, liquid investments.

BNY Mellon Settles with Texas Over Probe Into Rigged Bond Biddinghttps://www.ssb.state.tx.us/News/Press_Release/12-22-11_press.php, December 22, 2011
Texas State Securities Board

Texas Securities Fraud: SEC Moves to Freeze Assets of Stewardship Fund LP, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 5, 2011
More Blog Posts:
TD Bank Ordered to Pay Texas-Based Coquina Investments $67M Over $1.2 Billion Ponzi Scheme, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 19, 2012
Texas Securities Fraud: SEC Charges Life Partners Holdings Inc. in Life Settlement Scam, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 4, 2012

SEC Sues SIPC Over R. Allen Stanford Ponzi Payouts, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, December 20, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Oppenheimer & Co. Must Buyback $6M in Auction-Rate Securities from Investor, Says FINRA Arbitration Panel

Published on: January 11, 2012 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

A Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel has ordered Oppenheimer & Co. to repurchase the $5.98 million in New Jersey Turnpike ARS that it sold Nicole Davi Perry in 2007. The investor reportedly purchased the securities through Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. (OPY).

Perry, who, along with her father, filed her ARS arbitration claim against the financial firm in 2010, accused Oppenheimer of negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. She and her father, Ronald Davi, were reportedly looking for liquidity and safety, but instead ended up placing their funds in the auction-rate securities. They contend that they weren’t given an accurate picture of the risks involved or provided with a thorough explanation of the securities’ true nature.

Oppenheimer disagrees with the panel’s ruling. In addition to buying back Perry’s ARS, the financial firm has to cover her approximately $134,000 in legal fees.

It was just in 2010 that Oppenheimer settled the ARS securities cases filed against it by the states of New York and Massachusetts. The brokerage firm consented to buy back millions of dollars in bonds from customers who found their investments frozen after the ARS market collapsed and they had no way of being able to access their funds.

Oppenheimer is one of a number of brokerage firms that had to repurchase ARS from investors. These financial firms are accused of misrepresenting the risks involved and inaccurately claiming that the securities were “cash-like.” A number of these brokerage firms’ executives allegedly continued to allow investors to buy the bonds even though they already knew that the market stood on the brink of collapse and they were selling off their own ARS.

ARS
Auction rate securities are usually corporate bonds, municipal bonds, and preferred stock with long-term maturities. Investors receive interest rates or dividend yields that are reset at each successive auction.

ARS auctions take place at regular intervals—either every 7 days, 14 days, 28 days, or 5 days. The bidder turns in the lowest dividend yield or interest rate he or she is willing to go to purchase and hold the bond during the next auction interval. If the bidder wins at the auction, she/he must buy the bond at par value.

Failed auctions can happen when there are not enough bidding buyers available to acquire the entire ARS block being offered. A failed auction can prevent ARS holders from selling their securities in the auction.

There are many reasons why an auction might fail and why there is risk involved for investors. It is important that investors are notified of these risks before they buy into the securities and that they only they get into ARS if this type of investment is suitable for their financial goals and the realities of their finances.

Oppenheimer settles with Massachusetts, NY, Boston, February 24, 2010

More Blog Posts:
Oppenheimer Funds Investors Can Proceed with Their Securities Fraud Lawsuit, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 19, 2011

Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011

Bank of New York Mellon To Pay $1.3M To Texas, New York, and Florida Over Auction-Rate Securities Trading Allegations

Published on: December 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Bank of New York Mellon Corp. (BNY) has agreed to pay $1.3 million to the states of Florida, New York, and Texas over allegations that it engaged in the manipulative trading of auction-rate securities. The settlement comes following a joint probe by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, the Florida Office of Financial Regulation, and the Texas State Securities Board over Mellon Financial Markets’ actions as Citizens Property Insurance Corp. of Florida’s intermediary broker in an alleged scam to lower borrowing costs. Citizens Property is run by Florida and it is the largest home insurer in the state.

ARS interest rates are reset at auctions that usually occur at 7-day or 28-day intervals. According to the Texas State Securities Board, investors made $6.7 million less in interest than they would have earned if Citizens Property hadn’t placed bids during its own auctions. Mellon Financial Markets is accused of assisting Citizens Property in manipulating auction-rate securities’ interest rates by making and accepting bids on the latter’s behalf.

In 2008, Citizens Property allegedly asked a Mellon Financial Markets representative to assist it in bidding on its own ARS while hiding this action because broker-dealers in charge of managing the securities would have otherwise turned their bids down. Citizens Property then made bids that were lower than market rates, which caused the auctions to clear at rates below what they would have been. Meantime, Mellon Financial made approximately $300,000 in fees. At least one Mellon Financial broker expressed concern about these trades to a supervisor, who allegedly failed to seek legal advice or talk about these concerns with the MFM’s compliance department.

Following the collapse of the ARS market, one broker-dealer, who suspected that Mellon Financial was making Citizens’ bids, said that orders would no longer be made for a company bidding on its own securities. Yet, according to authorities, traders kept on with this practice until Bank of New York Mellon issued the order to stop. Those involved allegedly knew that bidding for CPIC established lower clearing rates, which would prove “detrimental” to investors holding or bidding on these ARS.

Citizens Property Insurance maintains that it thought its actions were “legally permissible.” The company claims that it was “vigilant” about getting advice from outside legal counsel before taking part in the transactions.

BNY Mellon Capital Markets has said that the alleged misconduct was related to the “isolated conduct” of three persons no longer with the financial firm. Mellon Financial Markets was a separate entity when the alleged bidding scam was happening.

BNY Unit Settles Auction-Rate Case, Wall Street Journal, December 23, 2011
Bank of New York Mellon Settles Auction-Rate Investigation, Bloomberg/Businessweek, December 23, 2011
BNY Mellon to pay $1.3M in Schneiderman suit, Crain’s New York Business, December 22, 2011

More Blog Posts:
Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, November 30, 2011
Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Securities Claims Accusing Merrill Lynch of Concealing Its Auction-Rate Securities Practices Are Dismissed by Appeals Court

Published on: November 30, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed a district court’s decision to dismiss securities fraud claims accusing Merrill Lynch & Co. of hiding its ARS practices to manipulate the market. The case had been filed by plaintiff Colin Wilson on behalf of all buyers between March 2003 and Feb. 13, 2008 that purchased ARS for which Merrill was the dealer.

Wilson contended that although until July 2007 Merrill Lynch did not allow its ARS auctions to fail, in the couple of months that followed the broker-dealer did not put in support bids during at least 34 auction-rate securities issuances. As a result, those auctions did fail. Wilson also claimed that because Merrill Lynch did not appropriately disclose the full scope of its ARS practices, the financial firm was sending out a false signal that the market was sustainable despite there being not enough of an investor demand for the instruments.

The district court threw out the Wilson’s ARS case after finding that Merrill’s disclosure did not mislead investors. Now, the appeals court is affirming. It found that if, as Wilson says, Merrill intended to put in support bids for every auction unless it decided to let certain ones fail or get out of the market in general, then the court believes that the broker-dealer gave fair disclosure of all this. The appeals court also didn’t agree with Wilson’s allegation that Merrill Lynch knew without a doubt that if it didn’t intervene an ARS auction was sure to fail.

This is the first appellate ruling involving securities class litigation over the demise of the ARS market. Upon the market’s decline beginning 2007, Merrill Lynch and other large broker-dealers started letting auction-rate securities auctions fail. When they completely stopped their support, the market became illiquid. A number of investors have since filed ARS lawsuits seeking to recover their money.

Although Merrill appears to have won this case, Shepherd Smith Edwards and Kantas founder and stockbroker fraud attorney William Shepherd notes, “This is not the huge victory Merrill claims. The court did NOT find that Merrill did not engage in wrongdoing in the sale of auction rate securities (ARS) to its clients, most of whom were led to falsely believe that these ARS investments were similar to commercial paper or short-term treasury bills. This case is instead concerned with “market manipulation,” a type of securities fraud claim that is rarely brought and almost never successful. In order to win this case, among other hurdles the plaintiffs would have to demonstrate that Merrill’s practices were intentional and were intended to change the market value of the securities. Also, this decision is by the federal appeals court in New York, which mysteriously decides many cases in favor of Wall Street.”

2d Cir. Affirms Merrill Off the Hook In Investor Suit Over ARS Disclosures, BNA, November 16, 2011
Read the full opinion (PDF)

More Blog Posts:
SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, July 29, 2011 Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, August 27, 2011
District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011 Continue Reading ›

Raymond James Settles Auction-Rate Securities Case with Indiana Securities Division for $31M

Published on: August 27, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

Raymond James has agreed to return $31,240,000 to Indiana investors to settle allegations that it misled them about the risks involved in the auction-rate securities market. In addition to repurchasing ARS that have been frozen since the market failed in 2008, the financial firm will also pay a $63,000 civil penalty.

When the ARS market froze, investors that had thought their investments were liquid like cash were left in the lurch because they were not able to retrieve their funds. The Indiana Securities Division has been at the helm of the efforts to investigated Raymond James and work out a settlement for all state securities regulators. Over the last few years, the states have worked hard to get all of the financial firms accused of not fully apprising investors about the ARS risks to buy back the securities.

Auction-Rate Securities
ARS are long-term investments with dividends or interest rates paid that are frequently reset through auctions that take place at specific intervals. The auctions are supposed to give a source of liquidity to investors wanting to sell their ARS.

Unfortunately, when the ARS market collapsed in early 2008, many of the auctions started to fail and investors could not get rid of their ARS holdings. This proved a problem for those that managed their ARS as a way to get easy access to cash.

While some ARS issuers did say they would redeem shares-usually at par value-some could not redeem all of their investors’ shares, which left the latter with holdings that could not be liquidated.

ARS and Hoosier Investors
The state of Indiana has also reached ARS settlements with other securities firms that allegedly misled Hoosier investors. In April of last year, 12 financial firms agreed to buyback over $370 million in ARS from these investors, while also consenting to pay over $3.5 million in fines. Financial firms that reached settlements then include:

• Goldman Sachs • Banc of America • Credit Suisse • Citigroup • JP Morgan • Deutsch Bank
• Morgan Stanley • Merrill Lynch • RBC • UBS • Stifel Nicolaus & Co.
• Wachovia
These financial firms have also reached settlements with other US states. However, millions of dollars in ARS remain frozen and there is still more to be done to help investors regain access to their frozen funds. Our stockbroker fraud law firm continues to work hard to help recoup our clients’ money from their ARS that turned illiquid.

Securities Fraud
Investors rely on brokers and investment advisers for advice on where they should place their money. When a financial adviser misleads a client, causing the latter to put their money in investments that are inappropriate, it is the investor who loses out and has to live with the consequences of a failed investment.

State Announces $31 Million Securities Settlement, Inside Indiana Business, August 24, 2011
State finalizes auction-rate securities settlements, Indianapolis Business Journal, April 29, 2010
Auction Rate Securities: What Happens When Auctions Fail, FINRA

More Blog Posts:
Auction-Rate Securities Investigations by SEC and NY Attorney General Are Ongoing, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, April 21, 2011
Class Auction-Rate Securities Lawsuit Against Raymond James Financial Survives Dismissal, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, September 27, 2010
Credit Suisse Ordered to Pay STMicroelectronics N.V. $404M Over Improper ARS Investment, Institutional Investor Securities Blog, June 15, 2011 Continue Reading ›

SEC and SIFMA Divided Over Whether Merrill Lynch Can Be Held Liable for Alleged ARS Market Manipulation

Published on: July 29, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Securities and Exchange Commission have submitted separate amicus curiae briefs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that differ on whether Merrill Lynch can be held liable for allegedly manipulating the auction-rate securities market. While SIFMA argued that an SEC order from 2006 that settled ARS charges against 15 broker-dealers affirmed the legality of the auction practices when they are properly disclosed, the SEC said that Merrill did not provide sufficient disclosures about its conduct in the ARS market and therefore what they did reveal was not enough to “preclude the plaintiff from pleading market manipulation.”

It was last year that the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed an investor claim that Merrill Lynch, which was acting as underwriter, manipulated the ARS market to attract investment. The court said that the claimant “failed to plead manipulative activity” and agreed with the brokerage firm that adequate disclosures were made. After appealing to the Second Circuit, the investor requested that the SEC provide its thoughts on five court-posed questions about the adequacy of the financial firm’s disclosures and how they impacted allegations of reliance and market manipulation.

The SEC said that the plaintiff’s claim that Merrill manipulated ARS auctions don’t preclude him from pleading, for fraud-on-the-market reliance purposes, an efficient market. SIMFA, however, said the plaintiff was precluded from claiming “manipulative acts” because investors have been made aware through “ubiquitous industry-wide disclosures about auction practices” that broker-dealers’ involvement in ARS actions is impacted by the “natural interplay” of demand and supply.

Related Web Resources:
Auction-Rate Securities UPDATE: SEC Brief May Help ARS Investors, Business Insider, July 26, 2011

More Blog Posts:

District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011

Credit Suisse Ordered to Pay STMicroelectronics N.V. $404M Over Improper ARS Investment

Published on: June 15, 2011 | by Shepherd Smith Edwards & Kantas, LLP

In STMicroelectronics N.V. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, 2d Cir., No. 10-3847-cv, 6/2/11, the US U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld an arbitration panel’s award against Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC for $405 million. The financial firm was accused of improperly investing STMicroelectronics N.V. (STM)’s money in high-risk auction-rate securities.

The court says that Credit Suisse offered ST the opportunity to invest in ARS in April 2006 even though the business needed to have cash or its equivalents easily at hand due to the cyclical nature of what it does. Prior to that, ST had invested its funds in safe, liquid securities, including money market deposits.

The court says that the financial firm “explicitly proposed” ARS investments and ST “explicitly accepted” investing only in these securities, which were supported by student loans that were federally guaranteed. Yet within a few days, the court says that Credit Suisse started buying higher yield, higher risk ARS for ST.

By January 2007, none of the ARS were backed by student loans anymore. Yet the financial firm sent an email to ST that concealed the investments “true nature.” All of ST’s ARS failed after the market collapsed and two of the Credit Suisse brokers in charge of the ST account would go on to be convicted of conspiracy and securities fraud charges.

ST later Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration claim against Credit Suisse. The U.S. District Court for Southern District of New York later confirmed the panel’s $406 million.

In its appeal, Credit Suisse attacked the award, claiming that arbitrator John J. Duval Sr. gave inaccurate and incomplete disclosures and was misleading because he suggested that he “worked for ‘both sides,’” when he actually was an expert witness for the claimants. The court rejected that contention. Credit Suisse also accused the arbitrators of “manifestly disregarding” the law when it reached its finding. The court rejected this contention too. The appeals court did, however, find that the district court should have credited the amount of the award funds that ST got from the sale of certain Deutsche Bank securities and, as a result, lowered the amount of interest due.

More Blog Posts:
Credit Suisse Broker Previously Convicted for Selling High Risk ARS is Barred from Future Securities Law Violations, Institutional Investors Securities Blog, February 12, 2011

District Court in Texas Decides that Credit Suisse Securities Doesn’t Have to pay Additional $186,000 Arbitration Award to Luby’s Restaurant Over ARS, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, June 2, 2011

Judge Gives Lower Sentence to Former Credit Suisse Broker Convicted of Auction-Rate Securities Fraud, Stockbroker Fraud Blog, January 30, 2010